Evaluative voting or classical voting rules: Does it make a difference? Empirical evidence for consensus among voting rules
Julia Grundner and
European Journal of Political Economy, 2019, vol. 59, issue C, 345-353
We provide empirical evidence for Tullock's claim (Tullock (1967, 1981)) that many of the problems known from social choice literature do not show up in practice. In particular, even though theoretically the use of different voting rules can lead to very different outcomes, there appears to be rather high consensus among voting rules when applied to real-world preference data. In addition, the famous and widely studied problem of majority cycles seems to be of little significance in practice. In this study, based on data collected in an online-survey in connection with the 2015 parliament election in the Austrian federal state of Styria, we confirm these findings to a high degree. Our analysis is based on an approach using a nonparametric bootstrap and includes various forms of evaluative voting (which has recently received increasing attention).
Keywords: Evaluative voting; Condorcet; Voting rules; Empirical study; Austrian election (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: D71 D72 C93 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: Track citations by RSS feed
Downloads: (external link)
Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.
Export reference: BibTeX
RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan)
Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:eee:poleco:v:59:y:2019:i:c:p:345-353
Access Statistics for this article
European Journal of Political Economy is currently edited by J. De Haan, A. L. Hillman and H. W. Ursprung
More articles in European Journal of Political Economy from Elsevier
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Haili He ().